How to foster productive and responsible debate
-
0:01 - 0:03What if you own a hotel,
-
0:03 - 0:06and one of the key principles
in your mission statement -
0:06 - 0:09is a commitment to treat
all employees and customers equally, -
0:09 - 0:12including on the basis
of gender and religion? -
0:13 - 0:16And then a large group
books an event at your space, -
0:16 - 0:19and when you look at the booking,
you realize it's a religious group, -
0:19 - 0:23and one of their key principles
is that women should never leave the home -
0:23 - 0:27and should have no opportunities for
professional development outside of it. -
0:27 - 0:28What do you do?
-
0:28 - 0:31Do you host the event
and get criticized by some, -
0:31 - 0:33or refuse and get criticized by others?
-
0:33 - 0:37In my work, I counsel organizations
on how to create rules -
0:37 - 0:41to navigate ideological disagreement
and controversial speech, -
0:41 - 0:43and I defend my clients,
-
0:43 - 0:45whether in court or from the government,
-
0:45 - 0:46when their actions are challenged.
-
0:46 - 0:48The structures I recommend
-
0:48 - 0:52recognize the real harms that can come
from certain types of speech, -
0:52 - 0:57but at the same time, seek to promote
dialogue rather than shut it down. -
0:57 - 1:00The reason is that we need disagreement.
-
1:00 - 1:02Creativity and human progress
-
1:02 - 1:03depend on it.
-
1:03 - 1:04While it may be often easier
-
1:04 - 1:07to speak with someone who agrees
with everything you say, -
1:07 - 1:10it's more enlightening
and oftentimes more satisfying -
1:10 - 1:11to speak with someone who doesn't.
-
1:11 - 1:15But disagreement and discord
can have real and meaningful costs. -
1:15 - 1:18Disagreement, particularly
in the form of hateful speech, -
1:18 - 1:22can lead to deep and lasting wounds
and sometimes result in violence. -
1:22 - 1:27And in a world in which polarization
and innovation are increasing -
1:27 - 1:29at seemingly exponential rates,
-
1:29 - 1:33the need to create structures for vigorous
but not violent disagreement -
1:33 - 1:35have never been more important.
-
1:36 - 1:39The US Constitution's First Amendment
might seem like a good place to start -
1:39 - 1:41to go to look for answers.
-
1:41 - 1:44You, like I, may have often
heard somebody say -
1:44 - 1:47that some form of a speech restriction,
whether from an employer, a website, -
1:47 - 1:49or even somebody else,
-
1:49 - 1:51"violates" the First Amendment.
-
1:51 - 1:55But in fact, the First Amendment usually
has little if any relevance at all. -
1:55 - 1:57The First Amendment only applies
-
1:57 - 2:00when the government is seeking
to suppress the speech of its citizens. -
2:00 - 2:04As a result, the First Amendment
is by design a blunt instrument. -
2:04 - 2:08A narrow category of speech
can be banned based on its content. -
2:08 - 2:10Almost everything else cannot.
-
2:10 - 2:12But the First Amendment has no relevance
-
2:12 - 2:16when what we're talking about
is a private entity regulating speech. -
2:16 - 2:18And that's a good thing,
-
2:18 - 2:20because it means private entities
have at their disposal -
2:20 - 2:24a broad and flexible set of tools
that don't prohibit speech, -
2:24 - 2:28but do make speakers aware
of the consequences of their words. -
2:28 - 2:30Here are some examples.
-
2:30 - 2:31When you go to university,
-
2:31 - 2:34it's a time for the free
and unrestricted exchange of ideas. -
2:35 - 2:38But some ideas and the words
used to express them -
2:38 - 2:39can cause discord,
-
2:39 - 2:43whether it's an intentionally inflammatory
event hosted by a student group -
2:43 - 2:46or the exploration
of a controversial issue in class. -
2:46 - 2:48In order to protect
both intellectual freedom -
2:48 - 2:50and their most vulnerable students,
-
2:50 - 2:54some universities have formed teams
that bring speaker and listener together, -
2:54 - 2:57free from the possibility of any sanction,
-
2:57 - 2:58to hear each other's viewpoints.
-
2:58 - 3:00Sometimes students don't want to meet,
-
3:00 - 3:01and that's fine.
-
3:02 - 3:03But in other circumstances,
-
3:03 - 3:07mediated exposure to an opposing view
can result in acknowledgment, -
3:07 - 3:09recognition of unintended consequences
-
3:09 - 3:11and a broadening of perspectives.
-
3:11 - 3:13Here's an example.
-
3:13 - 3:16On a college campus, a group of students
supporting the Israelis -
3:16 - 3:18and those supporting the Palestinians
-
3:18 - 3:20were constantly reporting each other
-
3:20 - 3:23for disrupting events,
tearing down posters -
3:23 - 3:25and engaging in verbal confrontations.
-
3:26 - 3:29Recognizing that most of
what the students were reporting -
3:29 - 3:32did not violate the university's
disciplinary code, -
3:32 - 3:35the university invited
both groups to sit down -
3:35 - 3:37in a so-called "restorative circle,"
-
3:37 - 3:39where they could hear
each other's viewpoints, -
3:39 - 3:41free from the possibility of sanction.
-
3:41 - 3:43After the meeting,
-
3:43 - 3:45the ideological disagreements
between the groups -
3:45 - 3:47remained as stark as ever,
-
3:47 - 3:51but the rancor between them
significantly dissipated. -
3:51 - 3:53Now, obviously, this doesn't
always happen. -
3:53 - 3:57But by separating reactions to speech
from the disciplinary system, -
3:57 - 4:00institutions of higher education
have created a space -
4:00 - 4:04for productive disagreement
and a broadening of perspectives. -
4:04 - 4:05We're all biased.
-
4:05 - 4:07I don't mean that in a bad way.
-
4:07 - 4:10All of us are influenced, and rightly so,
-
4:10 - 4:14by our family background,
our education, our lived experience -
4:14 - 4:15and a million other things.
-
4:15 - 4:17Organizations, too, have influences,
-
4:17 - 4:20most importantly, the beliefs
of their members, -
4:20 - 4:22but also the laws
under which they're governed -
4:22 - 4:24or the marketplace in which they compete.
-
4:25 - 4:29These influences can form a critical part
of a corporate identity, -
4:29 - 4:32and they can be vital
for attracting and retaining talent. -
4:32 - 4:35But these "biases," as I'm calling them,
-
4:35 - 4:36can also be a challenge,
-
4:36 - 4:38particularly when what we're talking about
-
4:38 - 4:42is drawing lines for allowing some speech
and not allowing others. -
4:43 - 4:45The temptation to find speech
harmful or disruptive -
4:45 - 4:47simply because we disagree with it
-
4:47 - 4:48is real.
-
4:48 - 4:52But equally real is the harm that can come
from certain types of expression. -
4:52 - 4:55In this situation, third parties can help.
-
4:55 - 4:57Remember the hotel,
-
4:57 - 5:00trying to decide whether or not to allow
the religious group to host its event? -
5:00 - 5:04Rather than having to make
a complex, on-the-spot decision -
5:04 - 5:06about that group's identity and message,
-
5:06 - 5:09the hotel could instead
rely on a third party, -
5:09 - 5:11say, for example,
-
5:11 - 5:12the Southern Poverty Law Center,
-
5:12 - 5:15which has a list of hate groups
in the United States, -
5:15 - 5:17or indeed even its own
outside group of experts -
5:17 - 5:19brought together from diverse backgrounds.
-
5:19 - 5:21By relying on third parties
-
5:21 - 5:26to draw lines outside the context
of a particular event, -
5:26 - 5:28organizations can make content decisions
-
5:28 - 5:31without being accused of acting
in self-interest or bias. -
5:32 - 5:35The line between facts
and opinions is a hazy one. -
5:35 - 5:39The internet provides the opportunity
to publish almost any position -
5:39 - 5:40on any topic under the sun.
-
5:40 - 5:42And in some ways, that's a good thing.
-
5:42 - 5:45It allows for the expression
of minority viewpoints -
5:45 - 5:48and for holding
those in power accountable. -
5:48 - 5:50But the ability to self-publish freely
-
5:50 - 5:53means that unverified
or even flat-out false statements -
5:53 - 5:55can quickly gain circulation and currency,
-
5:55 - 5:57and that is very dangerous.
-
5:58 - 6:01The decision to take down a post
or ban a user is a tough one. -
6:01 - 6:03It certainly can be appropriate at times,
-
6:03 - 6:05but there are other tools
available as well -
6:05 - 6:08to foster productive
and yet responsible debate. -
6:08 - 6:11Twitter has recently
started labeling tweets -
6:11 - 6:15as misleading, deceptive
or containing unverified information. -
6:15 - 6:18Rather than block access to those tweets,
-
6:18 - 6:21Twitter instead links to a source
that contains more information -
6:21 - 6:23about the claims made.
-
6:23 - 6:26A good and timely example
is its coronavirus page, -
6:26 - 6:29which has up-to-the-minute information
about the spread of the virus -
6:29 - 6:31and what to do if you contract it.
-
6:32 - 6:34To me, this approach makes a ton of sense.
-
6:34 - 6:36Rather than shutting down dialogue,
-
6:36 - 6:41this brings more ideas,
facts and context to the forum. -
6:41 - 6:43And, if you know that your assertions
are going to be held up -
6:43 - 6:45against more authoritative sources,
-
6:45 - 6:47it may create incentives
-
6:47 - 6:49for more responsible speech
in the first place. -
6:50 - 6:52Let me end with a hard truth:
-
6:52 - 6:55the structures I've described
can foster productive debate -
6:55 - 6:57while isolating truly harmful speech.
-
6:57 - 7:00But inevitably, some speech
is going to fall in a grey area, -
7:00 - 7:02perhaps deeply offensive
-
7:02 - 7:05but also with the potential
to contribute to public debate. -
7:06 - 7:07In this situation,
-
7:07 - 7:08I think as a general matter,
-
7:08 - 7:12the tie should go to allowing
more rather than less speech. -
7:12 - 7:13Here's why.
-
7:13 - 7:15For one, there's always the risk
-
7:15 - 7:18that an innovative
or creative idea gets squelched -
7:18 - 7:20because it seems unfamiliar or dangerous.
-
7:20 - 7:22Almost by definition,
-
7:22 - 7:26innovative ideas challenge orthodoxies
about how things should be. -
7:26 - 7:28So if an idea seems
offensive or dangerous, -
7:28 - 7:30it could be because it is,
-
7:30 - 7:33or it might simply be
because we're scared of change. -
7:33 - 7:38But let me suggest that even if
speech has little to no value at all, -
7:38 - 7:42that deficiency should be shown
through open debate -
7:42 - 7:43rather than suppression.
-
7:43 - 7:44To be very clear:
-
7:44 - 7:48false speech can lead
to devastating real-world harms, -
7:48 - 7:51from the burning of women
accused of being witches in Europe -
7:51 - 7:52in the 15th century
-
7:52 - 7:55to the lynching of African Americans
in the American South, -
7:55 - 7:57to the Rwandan Genocide.
-
7:57 - 8:00The idea that the remedy
for false speech is more speech -
8:00 - 8:02isn't always true.
-
8:02 - 8:05But I do think more often than not,
more speech can help. -
8:05 - 8:09A famous story from First Amendment
case law shows why. -
8:09 - 8:13In 1977, a group of neo-Nazis
wanted to stage a march -
8:13 - 8:16through the leafy, peaceful suburb
of Skokie, Illinois, -
8:16 - 8:19home to a significant number
of Holocaust survivors. -
8:19 - 8:22The City Council immediately passed
ordinances trying to block the Nazis, -
8:22 - 8:24and the Nazis sued.
-
8:24 - 8:27The case made it all the way
up to the US Supreme Court -
8:27 - 8:28and back down again.
-
8:28 - 8:31The courts held that the neo-Nazis
had the right to march, -
8:31 - 8:33and that they could
display their swastikas -
8:33 - 8:36and give their salutes while doing so.
-
8:36 - 8:37But when the day for the march came,
-
8:37 - 8:39and after all that litigation,
-
8:39 - 8:41just 20 neo-Nazis showed up
-
8:41 - 8:43in front of the Federal Building
in Chicago, Illinois, -
8:43 - 8:47and they were met
by 2,000 counter-protesters -
8:47 - 8:49responding to the Nazis' messages of hate
-
8:49 - 8:50with ones of inclusion.
-
8:51 - 8:53As the Chicago Tribune noted,
-
8:53 - 8:57the Nazi march sputtered
to an unspectacular end after 10 minutes. -
8:57 - 9:01The violence in Charlottesville, Virginia,
and indeed around the world, -
9:01 - 9:03shows this isn't always
how these stories end. -
9:03 - 9:06But to me, the Skokie story is a good one,
-
9:06 - 9:11one that shows that the fallacy
and moral bankruptcy of hateful speech -
9:11 - 9:13can best be responded to
not through suppression -
9:13 - 9:17but through the righteous power
of countervailing good and noble ideas. -
9:17 - 9:19Thank you.
- Title:
- How to foster productive and responsible debate
- Speaker:
- Ishan Bhabha
- Description:
-
The clash of ideas is fundamental to creativity and progress, but it can also be deeply destructive and create divisions within companies, communities and families. How do you foster productive debate while protecting against harmful speech and misinformation? Constitutional lawyer Ishan Bhabha lays out structures that organizations can use to navigate ideological disagreement and responsibly bring facts and context to a larger dialogue.
- Video Language:
- English
- Team:
- closed TED
- Project:
- TEDTalks
- Duration:
- 09:32
Oliver Friedman edited English subtitles for How to foster productive and responsible debate | ||
Oliver Friedman approved English subtitles for How to foster productive and responsible debate | ||
Oliver Friedman edited English subtitles for How to foster productive and responsible debate | ||
Camille Martínez accepted English subtitles for How to foster productive and responsible debate | ||
Camille Martínez edited English subtitles for How to foster productive and responsible debate | ||
Camille Martínez edited English subtitles for How to foster productive and responsible debate | ||
Joseph Geni edited English subtitles for How to foster productive and responsible debate | ||
Joseph Geni edited English subtitles for How to foster productive and responsible debate |